Wayne Allard

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. I ask for a ``no'' vote.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. According to the Army, the Salazar amendment is too restrictive. It prevents them from doing anything on Pinon Canyon to resolve even their differences with the farmers and ranchers, including photocopying handouts or maps to the citizens with questions, holding community meetings to find common ground, and even doing a required environmental impact statement. Senator Salazar and I have offered amendments to last year's and this year's Defense authorization bill to address many of the valid issues raised by concerned citizens and elected officials whose communities are affected by the proposed expansion of Pinon Canyon, the need for any expansion of Pinon Canyon by the Army, and the economic and environmental impact to southeastern Colorado. I agree with my colleague that the Army needs to answer questions. I agree we need to ensure the residents and communities impacted by any expansion are part of the process and their concerns are addressed. I believe this amendment would not accomplish those goals but, rather, actually keep us from getting needed answers to which they are entitled. Where we disagree is on the approach. This amendment will have long-term unintended consequences we could regret. I ask my colleagues to consider those consequences before they vote. I ask my colleagues to vote no on the Salazar amendment. Exhibit 1 Secretary of the Army, Washington, DC, September 6, 2007. Senator Jack Reed, Acting Chairman, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Military Construction, and Veterans' Affairs, Washington, DC. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Military Construction, and Veteran's Affairs, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman and Senator Hutchison: I am writing to express the Army's views regarding the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site (PCMS) in Colorado. The Army wishes to expand the PCMS in order to provide our Soldiers with the best, most realistic, and doctrinally sound training possible. The Army's need for U.S.-based training and maneuver space will increase significantly as a result of the planned return of approximately 70,000 troops from overseas bases. These Soldiers previously conducted much of their training and achieved their readiness standards by using overseas training and maneuver space; the same requirements are now being shifted onto an existing U.S. installation footprint. Adding an increased requirement to a finite amount of training space can be partially managed with work-arounds, but there are limits. At some point, training can become degraded in quality and unrealistic. Moreover, the land itself must also recover from intense training exercises. Adding more training exercises to the same plot of land can pose environmental risks. In addition, changes to technology and the organization of our units requires each Brigade Combat Team (BCT) to be more agile, be more readily deployable, and be able to secure significantly more territory than their Cold-War era counterparts. To properly train our BCTs, they need to meet higher home-station readiness levels than ever before. To attain this readiness, they need adequate space to maneuver under realistic conditions. Shipping units elsewhere is not an acceptable substitute for home-station training because it would take valuable time from Soldiers away from their Families--Soldiers and Families are already bearing tough sacrifices on behalf of the nation. The Army has a growing training land shortfall that will reach 5 million acres across the entire country by 2011. Fort Carson is not the only base with projected training land shortfalls, but not all bases have an opportunity to expand to remedy to the problem. The Army has the ability to address some of the overall training land shortfall by acquiring land at PCMS. If the Army is legislatively prevented from expanding PCMS, it will harm the Army's ability to provide necessary and realistic training to units stationed at Fort Carson, as well as Active, Reserve, and Guard units training there. The Army firmly opposes legislation to limit the Army's proposed expansion of PCMS. Indeed, the Army may need to expand other installations around the country, and such legislation could create a dangerous precedent that the Army will forever be locked into its current training and maneuver space footprint regardless of any future changes to organization, technology, doctrine, or threats. Thank you for your consideration of the Army's views as you complete your work on S. 1645. Sincerely, Pete Geren.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise to speak on amendment No. 2622, which the Senate will be voting on later today offered by Senator Salazar. Mr. President, I regret that I must rise to oppose this amendment from my friend and colleague from Colorado. But this issue is of too great importance to the men and women who are fighting for our freedoms around the world. My colleague has characterized this as an Army versus the ranchers and farmers issue. I do not think this is our fighting men in the military versus farmers and ranchers, and here is why. Because I believe there are willing sellers and willing buyers in this particular instance. Private property owners, I have been told, approached the Army and said: Look, we have some land available we want you to consider in your plans to expand a needed training area, for the Army to consider looking at dealing with us and selling that land. So I think this particular proposal does not need to be an Army versus farmers and ranchers. I think this can be worked out with deliberation and thought during this process. Two years ago, the entire Colorado congressional delegation made a successful argument to the BRAC Commission to keep Fort Carson Army Base in Colorado Springs open. We made a commitment that if the Army kept Fort Carson open and even added soldiers, we would make sure our soldiers stationed there would be provided with adequate training to do their job. The Army kept Fort Carson open and restationed two new brigades, totalling more than 10,000 new soldiers, to the mountain post due to the commitment made by the entire Colorado delegation. It would be hypocritical for us as a delegation to now tell the Army: We want those new soldiers, and we want the economic benefit from those new soldiers, but we are unwilling to do what is required of us as a State to ensure that our men and women stationed at Fort Carson are provided with adequate training. This amendment is a horrible precedent that will impact more than Fort Carson. It is a national security issue at a time when our Nation is engaged in armed conflict. Currently, the Army has a backlog of 2 million acres needed for training. The shortfall is expected to increase to 5 million acres by 2011, according to the Department of the Army's response to the National Defense Authorization Act of 2007, which is available for perusal by my colleagues. This issue could be reaching your State. Congress should be working with the Pentagon to address this serious backlog that is hindering the Army's ability to provide adequate training our soldiers need and deserve. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter of opposition to the Salazar amendment from the Secretary of Army, Pete Geren.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. I ask unanimous consent to modify amendment No. 2535.

Mr. ALLARD. I call up amendment No. 2535 and then ask unanimous consent that it be modified, and the modified version is at the desk.

Mr. ALLARD. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, this amendment codifies the ``unborn child'' rule. The purpose of this amendment is to provide health care services to benefit either the mother or unborn child, consistent with the health of both. It has been reported that some States denied health care to the mother for disorders not directly affecting the unborn child. This is just a commonsense amendment. Obstetricians recognize that you are dealing with two separate individuals, that you have to deal with the unborn child as well as the mother. Obviously, you need to have a healthy mother in order to have a healthy unborn child. I ask for an ``aye'' vote.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, this is not unprecedented action. We have passed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, and so this is basically what we are trying to do, to make sure the mothers have the health care they need. I yield the remainder of my time and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask Senator McConnell be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss my amendment to codify the unborn child rule in the pending SCHIP legislation. This needs to be done, and it needs to be done in this reauthorization. The unborn child rule is a regulation that since 2002 has allowed States to provide prenatal care to unborn children and their mothers. It recognizes the basic fact that the child is in the womb--the child in the womb is a child. When a pregnancy is involved, there are at least two patients; there is the mother and there is the baby. It only makes sense to cover the unborn child under a children's health program. The bill before us modifies the SCHIP statute to allow States to cover pregnant women of any age. It also contains language that asserts that the bill does not affirm either the legality or illegality of the 2002 ``unborn child'' rule. My amendment would codify the principle of the rule by amending the SCHIP law to clarify that a covered child: includes, at the option of a State, an unborn child. The amendment further defines ``unborn child'' with a definition drawn verbatim from Public Law 108-212, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. So it is not new language in our statute. My amendment would also clarify that the coverage for the unborn child may include services to benefit either the mother or unborn child consistent with the health of both. In addition, the amendment clarifies that the States may provide mothers with postpartum services for 60 days after they give birth. Many States' definition of coverage for pregnant women leads to the strange legal fiction that the adult pregnant woman is a child. Surely it was not the intent of anyone to develop a State Children's Health Insurance Program to allow a loophole for States to define a woman as a child. Surely we can agree that the child in the womb who receives health care is a child receiving care along with his or her mother. My amendment will also allow for coverage of the mother, whereas the pending legislation only allows for pregnancy-related services. There are many conditions that can affect the mother's health during pregnancy that are not related to her pregnancy. Under the pending legislation, a pregnant mother could not get coverage for any condition that is not related to her pregnancy. We should be allowing mothers to stay healthy so they will have healthy babies. This also leads to reduced costs associated with premature or low birth-weight babies. Eleven States are already using this option to provide such care through the State Children's Health Insurance Program. If the intent of the sponsors is to provide coverage for the pregnant woman and her unborn child, then they should have no problem supporting my amendment. We should ensure that pregnant women and their unborn children are both treated as patients. This is a matter of common sense. Every obstetrician knows that in treating a pregnant woman, he is treating two patients, the mother and her unborn child. Keeping this coverage in the name of the adult pregnant woman alone is bad for the integrity of a children's health program, bad for the child, and even bad for some of the neediest of pregnant women. I am urging my colleagues to support my amendment. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill.) The Senator from Montana.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the hard work and meritorious sacrifice of the Army Veterinary Corps. Their efforts support the global war on terrorism by protecting not only the military men and women serving our country, but our armed forces' animals as well. The Army Veterinary Corps was formally established in 1916. However, the need for a military veterinary service was recognized as far back as the Revolutionary War. George Washington knew that if the Army used horses, it needed farriers as well. The program continued through the 19th century and when the Civil War began, the War Department issued orders that provided each cavalry regiment with a veterinary surgeon. As early as the 1890s, army veterinarians were sought to inspect meat, poultry and dairy products destined for the frontier posts. Veterinary officers were first commissioned following the passage of the National Defense Act of June 3, 1916, and the Army Veterinary Corps became a reality. While providing care to the military's working animals would be part of the Army veterinarian's function, food safety and regulation was a primary mission upon the Army Veterinary Corps creation. After the start of World War I, veterinarians within the ranks of the Army rose from 57 to 2,313 in just 18 months. Since World War I, the Veterinary Corps has remained an essential asset to our Nation's military by ensuring the health of both our animals and troops. The Air Force formed a veterinary service in 1949 as well, but in 1979, Congress directed changes to Department of Defense's veterinary missions and in 1980 the Army became DOD's Executive Agent for veterinary services. Today the mission of the Army Veterinary Corps includes maintaining food safety and defense, animal medicine, and medical research support. Part of this mission is protecting the food of deployed soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. In the global war on terrorism, more than 200 U.S. Army veterinarians have deployed in support of our Nation's efforts. The threat of BSE, the spinach recall due to pathogenic E. coli, and the ongoing pet food recall are just a few examples that illustrate the necessity of having robust food safety programs throughout DOD. Army veterinary service personnel audit more than 3,800 food producers in more than 80 countries annually to ensure safe food for service members and beneficiaries. Approximately 75 percent of emerging pathogens are zoonotic, meaning they are shared by both animals and man, such as avian influenza. Army veterinarians have actively contributed to military and interagency planning processes as well. They recently participated in the development of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Avian Influenza Playbook in support of the National Response Plan. Veterinary personnel are also an essential contributor in overseas avian influenza testing and surveillance programs. The Army Veterinary Corps executes programs to test for, monitor and control other emerging diseases, like West Nile Virus, numerous food borne diseases, certain parasitic infections, and rabies. Army veterinarians direct animal medicine programs that protect both military members and their pets. In the same role, they also provide veterinary medical care for the Government-owned and contractor military working dogs which detect explosives, weapons and other devices. These animals help to literally take these weapons out of the hands of terrorists and insurgents. Here at home, military veterinary supervision of operational ration assembly plants, supply and distribution points, ports, and other types of subsistence operations are critical to ensuring safe, wholesome food for our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and their family members. The service provided by the Army Veterinary Corps remains an increasingly vital component of our homeland defense. There are nearly 700 veterinarians serving on active duty, Army Reserve, and National Guard today. These brave service men and women proudly protect our Nation and its animals. I offer my sincere thanks and appreciation to these veterinarians and their staffs who dedicate their time and efforts in aid to the United States of America. As a veterinarian, I am proud to see them portray a positive image of our country, both at home and deployed abroad.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, I ask the pending amendment be set aside, and we call up Allard amendment No. 2536.

Mr. ALLARD. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Senator from Mississippi for his question. Here is what my amendment does. It directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish rules and regulations to set a uniform gross income among the States. He has 90 days, once the bill becomes law, to do that. This will give the States further opportunity to give their input to the Secretary, and it gives him some flexibility to listen to what their concerns are, but says then these States all have to operate under the same rules. Some States, for example, when they looked at total gross income, have not included income benefits from other programs. Some States have. So this amounted to a considerable amount of discrepancy, particularly in high-income States where the benefits are running much higher. So we see some States that are getting a much higher rate of benefit through SCHIP than perhaps the more responsible States, such as your State of Mississippi, my State of Colorado, for example. So this is an important amendment to bring some integrity to the program.

Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Senator from Mississippi for his question. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, what is the pending amendment?

Mr. ALLARD. Thank you. Madam President, I plan on going ahead and, if I understand what we have agreed to, I have 2\1/2\ minutes to speak. I plan on spending a minute or minute and a half to talk about my amendment, and then I will yield and wrap it up later. I would appreciate it if the Chair will alert me when I have spoken for about 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, today I come to the floor to offer an amendment for the purpose of upholding the original intent of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which is commonly known as SCHIP. In 1997, a Republican-led Congress passed SCHIP to help States provide health coverage to low-income children. Current law defines a targeted low-income child as one who is under the age of 19 years, uninsured, and who would not have been eligible for Medicaid in 1997. States may set the upper income eligibility level at 200 percent of the Federal poverty level or 50 percentage points above the State's Medicaid income level. But that is not what is happening today. In my State of Colorado, we had a health care summit meeting early on in the year. It was very popular, well attended by representatives of health providers all over the State of Colorado. They had this to say: We think the SCHIP program is successful, and we think it ought to provide care to needy children, those who are uninsured. They further stated that there needs to be some equity among the various States and the money they get for SCHIP. Today, anywhere between 12 and 15 States have income thresholds above 200 percent of the Federal poverty level or 50 percent above the State's Medicare income level, which was provided for in the original legislation. So we have 12 or 15 States that have figured out how to get around that provision. States such as California, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Vermont use income disregards to expand their income thresholds beyond the intent of the SCHIP program. As of July 2006, just a year ago, New Jersey topped the list at 350 percent of the Federal poverty level, at $72,275 for a family of four, I am told. In fiscal year 2005, nearly half of all children in the United States were covered by Medicaid or SCHIP. SCHIP was never intended to cover all 77 million children in the United States. It was never intended to make all children, regardless of income, dependent on Government for access to health insurance. In April, New York passed its budget which expanded SCHIP to 400 percent of the Federal poverty level or $82,600 for a family of four. By disregarding specific types of incomes, States can ignore earnings between 200 percent of Federal poverty level and their upper limit, as if that income did not even exist. States should not be disregarding large portions of income to avoid SCHIP eligibility levels. Rather than returning SCHIP to its true intent, the pending legislation makes a deliberate choice to drive up eligibility levels. My amendment brings the language back to the original intent of SCHIP. My amendment would require that a family's gross income be used to determine eligibility for SCHIP, and that the Secretary of Health and Human Services would determine new regulations for eligibility for SCHIP by establishing what is referred to as ``gross income'' and having that defined at a certain level. States would still have the opportunity to cover any child who was determined to be ineligible for SCHIP based on the changes made by this amendment. They would remain eligible for the program, but the State would be reimbursed according to the Federal medical assistance percentage rate rather than the enhanced Federal medical assistance percentage rate. So I ask my fellow Senators to support me and fellow Republicans in supporting the SCHIP reauthorization. My amendment tracks current law that upholds SCHIP's original intent, and that is for low-income children. Supporting this alternative is a step toward renewing our commitment to America's most vulnerable population; that is, our children. I will yield the floor.

Mr. ALLARD. That is fine. Madam President, I rise to encourage my colleagues in the Senate to vote with me on this important amendment. What we see happening now is that there is a discrepancy between the calculation of gross income between the various States. Because of the way the various States are calculating their gross income, some States are getting more benefit under SCHIP than others. The State of Colorado, for example, is not one of those States. There are 12 to 15 States that have made some adjustments in the way they figure gross income, and that entitles them to more Federal dollars as far as SCHIP is concerned. So what my amendment does, if it is adopted, it will direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to put in regulations the definition of gross income. This is going to have a 90-day period in order to establish this value, and this will then allow the States an opportunity to come and give their input as to what they think the calculation of gross income should be. Then, when that rule and regulation is enacted, all the States are going to be acting under the same rules so they will all be figuring their gross income in the same way. I think this is an important amendment. I think when we are talking about equity of benefits to the various States, it is extremely important we make sure they are operating under the same rules. Right now we have some of the States that disregarded the original intent of SCHIP and, as a result of that, they are receiving considerably more benefit as far as SCHIP is concerned than some of the other States. My hope is my language will be adopted, and then we can move forward with this program. It has been working. We have to create some equity among the States. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, this is a matter of fairness among the States. Any child determined to be ineligible for SCHIP would remain in the State program, but the State would be reimbursed according to the FMAP rate rather than the enhanced EFMAP reimbursement rate. I think this is an important issue as far as equity among the various States. I ask Members to join me in voting for this particular amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, today I commemorate the Spring Creek Flood in Fort Collins, CO, which occurred 10 years ago this weekend. As the rains began to fall on the evening of July 27, 1997, it would have been hard for anyone to believe that this seemingly typical summer afternoon storm would wreak havoc on the city. All told, 14.5 inches fell on Fort Collins within a 31-hour period of time. Composite rainfall patterns indicated that over 10 inches of rain blanketed a 30 square mile area of northern Colorado. This flood took the lives of 5 Fort Collins residents and forced over 400 to be rescued from the rising waters, severely damaged or destroyed approximately 2,000 homes and businesses across the city, caused over $200 million in damage, including the near destruction of Colorado State University's library. The storm derailed a train and caused buildings to explode. This was not something this college town was used to experiencing. Those residents who were fortunate enough to be unaffected by the flood that night awoke to the sounds of helicopters, massive road closures, and local schools converted into Red Cross shelters. For a place that occasionally made national news by appearing on lists for ``best place to live'' and ``most restaurants per capita,'' this sudden and shocking destruction was not the reason why the people of Fort Collins ever imagined their town would be the top story on all the news networks. As quickly as the rains came that night, and continued through most of the following day, it was all over. Sadly, like the pictures we all vividly remember of recent natural disasters in the United States, many wondered aloud in Fort Collins 10 years ago how this could have happened here. As the small creeks that flowed peacefully along the sides of bike trails and through the parks and baseball fields of the city suddenly swelled and transformed into violent streams of water that engulfed so much, it seemed probable that this city of about 110,000 residents would be permanently affected by this storm for a long time to come. For a community that had experienced tremendous expansion and job growth through the 1990s--due considerably to the rise of the tech boom--it appeared the good times had come to an end. With so many infrastructures in disrepair, it seemed unlikely that companies would continue to expand to Fort Collins in the manner they had been doing over the years preceding the flood. What had long been, and continues to be, the heart of Fort Collins, Colorado State University, received the brunt of the damage. Just 5 weeks prior to the start of classes, a 7-foot wall of water that had concentrated its strength through the run off of many smaller floods tore through the main campus. Thirty-six buildings sustained significant damage, most especially the newly remodeled Morgan Library and the Lory Student Center. Rain-water, sewage and debris rushed through the library and destroyed about 425,000 books and journals, about one-quarter of the library's inventory. As school began that year, the students and professors adapted to a more nomadic life, but worked together, as they all faced the same obstacles. As time moved on, CSU began to recover from the flood, the Morgan Library was rebuilt and CSU took the opportunity to update its electronic resources, making them state-of-the-art. The drainage systems were updated and replaced, with walls and landscaping put in place to counter a flood 6 inches greater than what was experienced in 1997. As CSU recovered, the city did as well. Beautification and clean- up efforts took place on a massive scale, stronger bridges were built, and creeks were redesigned to more evenly disperse water should this 500-year flood ever occur again. The community at-large pitched in to clean up the parks and neighborhoods that were littered by debris. Local businesses, the school district, and CSU all continued to work together and leaned on each other to bring Fort Collins back. As the Colorado summer faded into fall and the days began getting shorter, the mounds of ruined furniture and rows of unusable refrigerators that lined the neighborhood sidewalks for so long slowly began disappearing from the city's landscape and life started to get back to normal. Fort Collins has continued to grow over the last 10 years and so has CSU. Still, there are many reminders today of the storm: from the occasional open spaces that were simply wiped out by the flood and never rebuilt; to new buildings, roads and bridges that were built following the storm; to the glaring markers that line the Spring Creek Trail showing the water levels on that day 10 years ago. Sadly, Fort Collins' experience with flooding and tragedy is shared by many communities across the Nation, most especially along the gulf coast in Louisiana and Mississippi, as many continue to struggle to find some semblance of normalcy almost 2 years after Katrina and Rita. Recently, we have seen massive floods throughout Texas and in the Midwest as well, particularly in Kansas and Missouri. While all these events are all uniquely tragic, it is my hope that the devastation experienced in Fort Collins, Colorado 10 years ago can serve as an example to the many other communities across the country that are not as far removed from their storms: that there is a light at the end of the tunnel, and as insurmountable as a natural disaster may seem, life will and does go on.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I wish to commend an extraordinary man from Colorado who just became the only two-time cancer survivor to reach the peaks of the world's highest tallest mountains on every continent. At the age of 13, Sean Swarner was diagnosed with stage IV Hodgkin's disease and was told he only had a few months to live. Sean battled back, but only 2 years later he was forced to face the possibility of death again. He was diagnosed with Askin's sarcoma, had a golf-ball sized tumor removed from his lung, and given only 10 days to live. Sean underwent intense chemotherapy and radiation, often slipping into comas from the abrasive treatments. The intensity of the radiation damaged one of his lungs to the point where it was no longer fully functional. Sean endured more in those few years than most of us experience in a lifetime, but he survived and eventually thrived. The cancers had been unrelated and doctors told Sean how lucky he was to survive, and that the odds of him surviving both cancers are similar to winning the lottery four times in a row with the same numbers. I don't believe luck had anything to do with Sean's survival. It was his absolute strength and fortitude that allowed him to fight the cancers. Sean beat the cancers and is now the only two-time cancer survivor to reach the summits of the highest mountains on all seven continents. Sean began his trek in 2002 when he conquered Mount Everest. Since then, he has climbed Mount Kilimanjaro, Mount Elbrus, Mount Aconcagua, Mount Vinson Massif, Mount Kosciusko, and on June 16, 2007 he climbed Alaska's Mount Denali, the seventh and final mountain in his quest to reach the highest summits on each continent. Conquering all seven peaks is an incredible accomplishment for anyone, but for someone in Sean's condition it is nothing short of amazing. The determination, perseverance, and courage that Sean demonstrated stands as an example to all of us that anything is possible if you really want it to happen. As amazing as these accomplishments are, Sean's story does not end with his successful mountain climbs and victory over two cancers. Sean is only 32 years old and has a lifetime ahead of him. He plans to climb the Carstensz Pyramid in Indonesia and the North and South Poles. Once he reaches the Poles, Sean will become one of less than a dozen people to complete the ``Adventure Grand Slam'' and the first cancer survivor to do so. When he isn't climbing mountains, Sean uses his experience with cancer and stories from his expeditions to spread hope and inspiration. He makes regular visits to cancer wards and provides strength and courage for those who continue to suffer from and battle cancer. Sean has also begun a motivation speaking tour by visiting wounded troops and veterans all over the country and is currently making arrangements to speak in Afghanistan and Iraq. Sean's story is truly inspirational, not only to those struggling to beat cancer, but to anyone who seeks to accomplish something that others say is impossible. I would like to commend Sean for his success and thank him for serving as such a positive role model to anyone who has faced long odds. Sean has proven the power of determination.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Simply put, we need to avoid micromanaging the war from the floor of the Senate. We need to let our military leaders perform their duties and give them time for our new way forward in Iraq to be successful. We now have before us the Levin-Reed amendment, which sets a timeline for us to begin withdrawal from Iraq. We cannot afford to set a hard deadline to begin to walk away from Iraq. The cost of failure is too great to our future long-term national security. It is in America's security interest to have an Iraq that can sustain, govern, and defend itself. Too much is at stake to simply abandon Iraq at this point. The price of failure is simply too great. I will continue to vote against any legislation that sets arbitrary deadlines and thresholds in Iraq, and I plead with my colleagues to do the same. Let me remind our colleagues that we have seen terrible results from political motives being placed above military necessities: the attempt at rescuing the American Embassy hostages from Tehran, and Beirut, in the 1980s, and Somalia in the 1990s. Leaving Iraq in the current situation would only result in emboldening terrorists around the world. Bin Laden himself is on record, after these previous withdrawals, criticizing our lack of will and questioning our commitment to fight these zealots. We have to learn from our mistakes in the past. I refer to a quote in the Iraq Study Group's final report on page 37 and 38: A premature American departure from Iraq would almost certainly produce greater sectarian violence and further deterioration of conditions. It goes on to say: The near-term results would be a significant power vacuum, greater human suffering, regional destabilization, and a threat to the global economy. Al-Qaeda would depict our withdrawal as a historic victory. If we leave and Iraq descends into chaos, the long-range consequences could eventually require the United States to return. Of course, I remain upset that more progress has not been made on the political and domestic security front within Iraq, but that reality doesn't diminish the fact that al-Qaida is training, operating, and carrying out their mission in Iraq right now. They are clearly still a threat and are still determined to accomplish their goals of attacking us and our allies around the world. What is most unfortunate about this debate is that clearly the majority party in the Senate has already prejudged the work our commander in Iraq, GEN David Petraeus, is trying to carry out. As we all know, in September a complete review of Iraq policy, including a detailed assessment of the surge, will be presented. I look forward to that assessment. I look forward to making the appropriate decisions based on that report. It would be disingenuous to discontinue the plans our military leaders have planned and are putting into place simply for political gain. I quote General Petraeus, commander of the multinational force in Iraq. He said: If I could have only one [thing] at this point in Iraq, it would be more time. I can think of few commanders in history who wouldn't have wanted more troops, more time, or more unity among their partners; however, if I could only have one [thing] at this point in Iraq, it would be more time. This is an exceedingly tough endeavor that faces countless challenges. None of us, Iraqi or American, are anything but impatient and frustrated at where we are. But there are no shortcuts. Success in an endeavor like this is the result of steady, unremitting pressure over the long haul. It's a test of wills, demanding patience, determination and stamina from all involved. I think we ought to give him his one wish. This is a similar situation we were in only months ago. Many in this body wanted to reject the strategy General Petraeus proposed in Iraq, even before he had been given the full opportunity to perform his mission. I still cannot comprehend why my colleagues would agree to a new bipartisan strategy in Iraq but only months later not be willing to support our self-imposed guidelines. On July 12, the President issued a report as required by the fiscal year 2007 supplemental appropriations bill, assessing the progress of the sovereign Government of Iraq in achieving the benchmarks detailed in the bill. The report told us 8 of the 18 benchmarks detailed in that bill received satisfactory remarks. While we are certainly disappointed that more benchmarks were not achieved, it is important to highlight the successes being made and how the Iraqi Government is performing, as their success will ultimately allow us to responsibly reduce our troop levels. The benchmarks that have reached success so far are as follows: The Government of Iraq has made satisfactory progress toward forming a constitutional review committee and then completing the constitutional review. The Government of Iraq has made satisfactory progress toward enacting and implementing legislation on procedures to form semi- autonomous regions. The Government of Iraq has made satisfactory progress toward establishing supporting political, media, economic, and services committees in support of the Baghdad security plan. The Government of Iraq has made satisfactory progress toward providing three trained and ready Iraqi brigades to support Baghdad operations. The Government of Iraq has made satisfactory progress in ensuring the Baghdad security plan does not provide a safe haven for any outlaws, regardless of their sectarian or political affiliations. The Government of Iraq, with substantial coalition assistance, has made satisfactory progress, once again, toward establishing the planned joint security stations in Iraq. The Government of Iraq has made satisfactory progress toward ensuring that the rights of minority political parties in the Iraqi legislature are protected. And finally, the Iraqi Government is making satisfactory progress in allocating funds to ministries and provinces for reconstruction projects. General Odierno, on the surge progress, says: The increased presence is having an effect, and it will continue to be felt in the weeks to come. We still have not reached . . . the end of our surge. Every day we are making progress. That is from LTG Ray Odierno, U.S. Army Commander of the multinational corps in Iraq. He goes on to list some specific examples. I don't need to list all those specific examples, but a full page in fine print where he points to successes in Iraq. What is most unfortunate during this debate is that the Democratic majority has put in jeopardy the passage of the Defense authorization legislation, something that simply has not happened in decades. By pushing for a failed Iraq policy amendment to the Defense authorization bill, the majority are willing to trash legislation that is vital to our men and women in the Armed Forces. The managers of the bill, Chairman Carl Levin and Ranking Member John McCain, should be commended for their good work on this comprehensive and vital legislation. The authorization bill provides our men and women in combat zones with the resources and equipment they need to complete their missions. It also provides for our troops at home by ensuring they receive appropriate medical care upon their return and the training needed prior to deployment. Finally, the bill provides for the health and well-being of our Armed Forces and the tools they need to defeat terrorism and defend our Nation from future attacks. An important component of this bill is the increased commitment to the quality of life for our service men and women. The authorization includes $135 billion for military personnel, authorizing payment of combat-related compensation to servicemembers medically retired for a combat-related disability and lowering the age at which members of the Reserves may draw from their retirement. This bill further provides our men and women with quality health care by adjusting $1.9 billion for TRICARE benefits and directing the Department of Defense to study and develop a plan addressing the findings of the Mental Health Assessment Commission. This bill also gives our troops the necessary protection to combat the threats they are facing right now, particularly to counter insurgent improvised explosive devices--commonly known as IEDs--threats which remain the No. 1 killer of American troops. This bill includes $4 billion to the individual services and special operations command for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles. It also fully funds the President's request of $4.5 billion for the Joint Improvised Explosive Devices Defeat Office for blast injury research and the procurement of IED jammers. Unfortunately, this legislation is threatened by the insistence of the majority leader on having this protracted and unnecessary debate. There is no doubt that we face extremely difficult challenges in Iraq. We have not made enough progress. The citizens of Iraq must be willing to fight for their own freedom. But we should not cut General Petraeus's time short in implementing his plan that this body overwhelmingly approved of only a few months ago. I have a quote or two I wish to share and remind the body about what the Democrats, the opposite party, have said. The Democrats' dismissal of General Petraeus's report is part of a pattern. The Baghdad security plan was declared a failure 2 months before U.S. reinforcements arrived in Iraq. Senator Reid from Nevada is quoted as saying ``This war is lost'' and that ``the surge is not accomplishing anything.'' Senator Levin said, ``It's a failure.'' But the surge only began in mid-June, 2 months after the Democrats first declared it a failure. General Petraeus said: The surge has really just . . . begun. Hours ago I heard the minority whip talk about how many on this side have acknowledged mistakes that have been made during the Iraq war, but how we won't vote to pull our troops out right away. I have been one of those Members of the Republican caucus who has said publicly that mistakes have been made. I will point out that the Commander in Chief has stated the same thing. That said, regardless of the errors that have been made, it does not mean the mission or the policy is any less important. In fact, I am trying to think of a conflict in which we have been involved that we can't point to some mistakes. I am very aware that the longer we stay in Iraq, the more it will cost the United States, both in money but, more importantly, in the lives of American men and women. However, I won't support the Levin-Reed amendment because I believe it is based on the assumption that by leaving Iraq prematurely, Americans will be safer. The terrorists have made it abundantly clear that Iraq is central to the war against the civilized world. They are committed to fighting there and will not stop unless we defeat them. If we have to fight, it is preferable not to fight on our own soil. So let's hurry and have the cloture vote on the Levin-Reed amendment so we can defeat it. I ask my colleagues to reject this amendment and let us return to the important debate on Defense authorization to ensure our troops have the adequate support here at home and abroad. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today reflecting on the most pressing issues on the minds of the American public--that of the current situation in Iraq. We have been in Iraq for nearly 4\1/2\ years, and frustration is certainly understandable. I wish nothing more than to see the United States reach a point where our soldiers and sailors and airmen and marines are able to leave and the Iraqi people can stand on their own. Our military has done an exceptional job. That point cannot be debated. But as so many have said, victory and ultimate success in Iraq cannot be completed solely through military strength. I wish also to specifically point out the leadership of the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator John McCain, on this issue. Having just returned from Iraq, his pointed remarks on our united efforts in Iraq and the importance of our mission are much needed. Senator McCain understands, as I do, that the terrorist threat in Iraq will not stop, nor will our safety improve at home if our forces leave. In their own words, these dangerous ideologues continue to make bold and alarming threats worldwide, but even more importantly, they are backing up their words with action. They will continue to strike our allies in the gulf and they will continue to strike our friends in Europe, and I believe they will not hesitate to strike America again, as they did on September 11. That said, I am extremely disappointed that more progress has not been made on the political and domestic security from within Iraq. The fact remains, Iraq is simply not ready to take over their own country today, and if the United States were to leave, the consequences would be nothing short of catastrophic. Al-Qaida is training, operating, and carrying out their missions in Iraq right now. As evidenced in Britain 2 weeks ago, they are clearly still a threat and are still determined to accomplish their goals of destroying western culture. That much has not changed. On July 12 the President issued a report as required by the fiscal year 2007 Supplemental Appropriations bill assessing the progress of the sovereign government of Iraq's performance in achieving the benchmarks detailed in the bill. As we know, this report told us that 8 of the 18 benchmarks detailed in that bill received satisfactory marks. While we are certainly disappointed that more benchmarks were not achieved, it is important to highlight the success that is being made, and how the Iraqi government is performing, as their success will ultimately allow us to responsibly reduce our troop levels. Specifically, the government of Iraq has made progress in forming a Constitutional Review Committee to review the constitution. This is important, just like in our Nation's history; we needed to create a constitution that provided a standard for which to base our laws. Though many contentious issues continue to exist, I am pleased that significant progress is being made. If Iraq cannot form their constitution, then it will be very difficult or impossible to move forward onto other matters. Also, the Iraqis have satisfied the requirements set forth to enact and implement legislation forming semi-autonomous regions. This law is set to come into effect in 18 months, but thus far this potentially very contentious issue has not received much attention. This is important as it further organizes and equips Iraq to take on the responsibilities of a democratic government and this benchmark furthers the necessary groundwork needed to build a responsible and legitimate government. Iraq has made progress to ensure the rights of minor political parties within the legislature and maintain that their rights are protected. Clearly this is important in obtaining legitimacy, particularly given the historical and present conflicts between the Sunnis, Shia, and Kurds. On the security front, the Iraqis, with coalition support, have successfully reached benchmarks establishing joint security stations across Baghdad that provide a continuous security presence. These stations are necessary as they can effectively combine American technology and capabilities with the Iraqi presence on the ground in order to counter insurgent threats where they begin. By mid-June, 32 joint security stations have reached initial operational capability and 36 combat outposts have reached initial or full capacity. Also, the goal of providing three trained and ready Iraqi brigades in support of Baghdad operations has been achieved and this complements the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. Certainly this is a major priority as the development of a functional and effective Iraqi fighting and security force is absolutely essential for the Iraqis to further take the reins of their government, and I am pleased that these goals are being accomplished thus far. At the beginning of this year, the President changed the focus of this effort. Decisions were made for a new direction. ADM William Fallon was placed in charge as CENTCOM commander and the Senate unanimously confirmed GEN David Petraeus as the new commander of our forces in Iraq. The much talked about, and much criticized, surge of 28,000 additional troops has only been underway for just about 3 weeks now. Operation Phantom Thunder began on June 15 and already Iraq, and particularly Baghdad, is a much different place than it was only 6 months ago. U.S. forces have begun working closely with Iraqis to bring down sectarian violence of al-Qaida in country. So far the new counterinsurgency has decreased Shiite death squad activity and many militia leaders have been disposed of. Execution levels are at the lowest point in a year, and al-Qaida hotspots in the city are shrinking and becoming isolated from one another and supply lines are being cut around the city. For the first time in years the U.S. is operating freely in eastern Baghdad as we are surrounding the villages and small towns around Baghdad routing out insurgent bases. Already, total car bombings and suicide attacks are down in May and June, and by the end of June, American troops controlled about 42 percent of the city's neighborhoods, up from 19 percent in April. Initial military success certainly does not mean that operations are complete, nor is political victory guaranteed. The fact remains that this body unanimously confirmed GEN Petraeus with the knowledge that he planned to initiate this surge that would ideally route out al-Qaida and ultimately clear the path for internal change within Iraq. Again, the surge began on June 15 and we owe it to our troops who are placing their lives on the line not to pull the plug on them while they remain in harm's way. Our best and brightest military minds have worked to construct this new strategy and we need to see it through. I would like to see our troops come home today, but the harsh reality remains that this is not a valid option, will not make us safer, and is not in our national interest. If we leave, it is naive to think al-Qaida and our enemies will just go away and we will no longer be threatened. Additionally, I have heard many of my colleagues discuss on the floor some of their new strategies in Iraq, strategies that I believe would weaken us at home and abroad. What I find curious is that they keep referring to finding a bipartisan resolution in Iraq, when only months ago this body overwhelmingly approved 2 new military commanders in the region and a new diplomatic leader in Ambassador Crocker. We also approved, in a bipartisan manner, the new way forward in Iraq that President Bush eloquently defended this morning. In that vote, this body committed that we would allow the surge to go forward and would give GEN Petraeus the time to enact the strategy. I cannot in good conscience cut short a plan barely 3 months old. As we all know, in September a complete review of Iraq policy, including a detailed assessment of the surge will be presented. I look forward to that assessment. I look forward to making the appropriate decisions based on that report. It would be disingenuous to simply discontinue the plans that our military leaders have planned and are putting into place simply for political gains. Remarkably, the Senate is in a similar situation that we were only months ago when many in this body wanted to reject the strategy GEN Petraeus proposed in Iraq, even before he has been given the full opportunity to perform his mission. Well, we are at it again. For what reason did my colleagues agree to the new strategy in Iraq but are not willing to support our own self-imposed guidelines? I don't know the answer to that, but I do know that I will not. I will continue to vote against any legislation that sets arbitrary deadlines and thresholds in Iraq--and plead with my colleagues to do the same. Let's not stand here this week and prejudge what will come out of the September 15 report, but more importantly, let's not prejudge the talents of our men and women in Iraq. Let's give our military and diplomatic teams the time they deserve, and which we had promised them. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.